5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mark Marks, PAgreen1 sentence2010We recognize the Legislature’s use of different terms in different parts of the same statute is “ ‘strong evidence that different meanings were intended.’ ” Maddox v. State, 923 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So.2d 533, 541 (Fla.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Stategreen1 sentence2010We recognize the Legislature’s use of different terms in different parts of the same statute is “ ‘strong evidence that different meanings were intended.’ ” Maddox v. State, 923 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So.2d 533, 541 (Fla.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1983In Thomas , the district court interpreted that part of section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which states that "[w]hoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses... ." The district court in Thomas construed that portion of section 775.021(4) which refers to "two or more criminal statutes" to mean that the statute did not extend to instances of multiple viola 1983In Thomas , the district court interpreted that part of section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which states that "[w]hoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses... ." The district court in Thomas construed that portion of section 775.021(4) which refers to "two or more criminal statutes" to mean that the statute did not extend to instances of multiple viola | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Department of Business Regulation v. Siegel
green
1 sentence1988The legislative intent of the requirement in section 718.110(4) of unanimous approval of any material alteration or modification of the appurtenances to a condominium unit should not be vulnerable to circumvention by the simple act of setting up an ostensibly independent corporation empowered to perform some of the functions of a condominium association but without the unit owner protection provided by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. [5] The cases cited by the recreation association, including Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association Inc., 413 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1982), and Department | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Com. Ass'n
green
1 sentence1988The legislative intent of the requirement in section 718.110(4) of unanimous approval of any material alteration or modification of the appurtenances to a condominium unit should not be vulnerable to circumvention by the simple act of setting up an ostensibly independent corporation empowered to perform some of the functions of a condominium association but without the unit owner protection provided by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. [5] The cases cited by the recreation association, including Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association Inc., 413 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1982), and Department | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Borges v. State
green
1 sentence1983The state contends that the district court erred in following its previous decision in Thomas because of this Court's intervening decision in Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence1983In Thomas , the district court interpreted that part of section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which states that "[w]hoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses... ." The district court in Thomas construed that portion of section 775.021(4) which refers to "two or more criminal statutes" to mean that the statute did not extend to instances of multiple viola | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Whalen v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The court then reasoned that Hegstrom could not be sentenced both for felony murder and for the underlying felony under the legislative intent test used in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 (1980), and section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which states: Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during sai 1982The court then reasoned that Hegstrom could not be sentenced both for felony murder and for the underlying felony under the legislative intent test used in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 (1980), and section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which states: Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during sai | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Braverman v. United States
green
2 sentences1981The Court in Albernaz did not repudiate the rationale of its decision in Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 , 63 S.Ct. 99 , 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). 1981The Court in Albernaz did not repudiate the rationale of its decision in Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 , 63 S.Ct. 99 , 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.